Working Group on Synthetic Genomics: Progress Report Dr. David - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Working Group on Synthetic

Genomics: Progress Report

• Dr. David Relman, Chair NSABB Meeting March 30,

2006

The Working Group on Synthetic Genomics was launched on November 22, 2005 to: examine the potential biosecurity concerns raised by the laboratorysynthesis of Select Agents, and thebroader field of synthetic biology; and recommend possible strategies to address these concerns.

Consider the adequacy of the current regulatory framework in view of the ability to synthesize Select Agent genes and genomes

• Reverse genetics allows generation of viable

virus from their published sequence.

• Traditionally, viruses are “rescued” from

recombinant or cloned DNA, which requiresaccess to natural sources of the agent itself.

• The use, possession, and transfer of Select

Agents are tightly controlled, but theavailability of DNA synthesis technologypresents new concerns, with respect to thelaboratory synthesis

• f Select Agent genomes.

To address this issue, the Working Group received briefings (Feb 15, 2006) on

• the extant legal framework for controlling

Select Agents;

• current technological capabilities for

synthesizing nucleic acids; and

• the state of the science, in a few key

application areas, for deriving infectious agents from synthetic nucleic acids.

• The Select Agent Rules implement the

provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act andPublic Health Security and BioterrorismPreparedness and Response Act of 2002.

• • These regulations set requirements for

possession, use, and transfer of SelectAgents and toxins. – define regulated agents by organism

(name)and their genetic material

• • There are additional applicable laws and

regulations.

• Makes it unlawful to knowingly

produce,synthesize, or engineervariola virus

• Definition for variola virus includes “any

derivative ofthe variola major virus thatcontains more than 85% of the gene sequence of

thevariola major virus or thevariola minor virus”

Possession, Use and Transfer within U.S.

Export Controls

Import into the U.S. Export from the U.S.

• Reagents and equipment for synthesizing

DNA are readily available, around the globe.

• Synthesizing oligonucleotides up to 120

inlength is routine and common; beyond 180 issomewhat of an art.

• Some complete viral genomes can be

synthesized at the present time, but not allDNA synthesis companies have thiscapability.

Comparing the pace

• f

biological technologiesand Moore’s Law (Robert Carlson, 2003)

10

9

Number of transistors per chip,bases sequenced or synthesized/person/day 10

6

10

5 10

8

10

7

10

4

1000 100

Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense, Strategy, Practice and Science Vol. 1 No. 3, 2003

How 12 companies answered when asked if they screen orders for sequences that bioterrorists could turn into weapons

BaseClear, Leiden, The Netherlands Not Routinely Bio Basic, Markham, Canada No Bionexus, Oakland, California Not Routinely Bio S&T, Montreal, Canada No Blue Heron Biotechnology, Bothell, Washington State Yes DNA 2.0, Menlo Park, California Yes Entelechon, Regensburg, Germany Yes GeneArt, Regensburg, Germany Yes Genemed Synthesis, South San Francisco, California No GenScript, Piscataway, New Jersey Usually Integrated DNA Technologies, Coralville, Iowa Yes Picoscript, Houston, Texas Not Routinely

• It is possible to recover/reconstruct infectious virus

from DNA for certain Select Agents (and routine insome laboratories). – Successful use of such reverse genetic

systems currently requires that one be “skilled in the art”.

• Vaccine researchers have created infectious

hi i i i bi ti f

Adapted from Aldhous, P. “The bioweapon is in the post” The New Scientist Issue 2525, 2005.

BaseClear, Leiden, The Netherlands Not Routinely Bio Basic, Markham, Canada No Bionexus, Oakland, California Not Routinely Bio S&T, Montreal, Canada No Blue Heron Biotechnology, Bothell, Washington State Yes DNA 2.0, Menlo Park, California Yes Entelechon, Regensburg, Germany Yes GeneArt, Regensburg, Germany Yes Genemed Synthesis, South San Francisco, California No GenScript, Piscataway, New Jersey Usually Integrated DNA Technologies, Coralville, Iowa Yes Picoscript, Houston, Texas Not Routinely

• It is possible to recover/reconstruct infectious virus

from DNA for certain Select Agents (and routine insome laboratories). – Successful use of such reverse genetic

systems currently requires that one be “skilled in the art”.

• Vaccine researchers have created infectious

chimeric viruses using combinations of genomicmaterial from different Select Agents. –

These novel organisms do not fit into traditional classification schemes

The Select Agent Rules (SAR) regulate:

• genetic material that encodes Select Agenttoxins,

and

• Select Agent genomic material that is inherently

infectious and capable of producinga Select Agent virus;

regardless of whether this material isobtained via de novo synthesis ortraditional methods.

42 CFR Sections 73.3, 73.4 Final Rule

• The basic concern is that synthetic genomics

may enable acquisition of a Select Agent (SA),

• utside of the SAR.
• • This concern emerges from issues

pertaining to

• scientific advances
• industry practices
• Individuals versed in, and equipped for routine

methods in molecular biology can use readilyavailable starting materials and procedures toexpress some SA

de novo.

• This kind of work may not have received adequate

attention.

• Synthetic genomics allows the expression of agents

that resemble and behave like SA, yetmight not be defined as SA based on genomesequence similarity, confounding traditionaldefinitions of agent identity.

• Screening of synthesis orders is not a

standard practice among vendorsof synthetic genes/genomes.

• There is no widely-accepted, optimized

methodology forscreening ordered sequences.

42 CFR Sections 73.3, 73.4 Discussion of Changes (Federal Register 70:13298, 2005)

Science and technology are rapidly evolving,such that there is a need to

• clarify the legal scope and interpretation of the

SAR as they pertain to synthetic genomics;

• deliberate further on the adequacy of the current

legal framework controlling selectagents; &

• explore a variety of strategies for addressing

biosecurity concerns related to syntheticgenomics.

The WG will consider the need for

• criteria that provide for identification of SA; •
• utreach and education to the scientific and

business communities, including guidance on their responsibilities under the SAR;

• best practices for DNA synthesis providers; &
• other measures for addressing biosecurity

concerns related to synthetic genomics.

• Collect additional information regarding the

biosecurity concerns raised by thesynthesis of SA, by engaging

• additional scientific experts; – other groups

working on related issues; &

• relevant international communities.
• Refine preliminary conclusions and develop

recommendations to the Board.

• Given the international nature of this field,

what are the most appropriate international

parties with whom the WG might engage?

• How do the WG’s findings impact the

deliberation of other WGs, and vice versa?

• Are there other issues that the Board would

like the Working Group to address?

Carlson, R. “Pace and Proliferation of Biological Technologies”, Biosecurity and Bioterrorism Vol. 1 No. 3, 2003

Aldhous, P. “The bioweapon is in the post” The New Scientist Issue 2525, 2005.

฀愀爀氀猀漀渀฀...................................................................................... .